The Ultimate Alignment Debate

[imp_fireball]

Alright, so anyway this is a debate involving D&D alignment archetypes. As construed as the SRD says they are, this debate attempts to label pop culture characters - fictional or real; some people in real life are known figures and might certainly be characters if life were somehow a tabletop game played by beings superintelligent enough to know all the extraordinarily compicated rules by heart - with perhaps your own definition of the listed alignments (which pretty accurately gives a name to the entire moral spectrum).

First, we'll start with my opinion and take it from there. Criticism is allowed, but keep it at a somewhat intelligent level.

Also, when you are listing characters in fiction, go by this format: <insert character name> from <insert fictional title and/or author/publisher/media plug that made them famous>. Also note that revealing a character's alignment might subject them to spoilers (say if they were particularly mysterious individuals) and so spoilers may or may not be unvealed.

'Tendencies' may also be included, reflecting the fact that a character could potentially flit from one alignment to the next, or to tilt dangerously close to that paradigm.

If two seperate tendencies are listed for a character, then that reflects the tendency to flit to one of those alignments rather than the potential to change to both if change is to occur at all, although a change to both may or may not occur.

Three seperate tendencies are disallowed for defining alignment, as that reflects that the character is potentially too complicated to suit the presiding alignment that you've listed and would likely be better covered by another one - that's where I'm drawing the line.

-------
Rorschach from Watchmen - Chaotic Neutral
The Comedian from the Above - Chaotic Evil with Neutral Tendencies
Ozzymandius from the Above - Lawful Evil with Good Tendencies
Dr Manhatten from the Above - Lawful Neutral
Silk Spectre II from the Above - Chaotic Good
Niteowl II from the Above - Neutral Good
Niteowl I from the Above - Neutral Good
Silk Spectre I from the Above - Chaotic Neutral
Tassadar from StarCraft - Neutral Good with Lawful Tendencies
Zeratul from the Above - Lawful Good with Chaotic Tendencies
Raynor from the Above - Chaotic Good
Kerrigan (while human) from the Above - Lawful Neutral
The Overmind from the Above - Neutral Evil
Daggoth from the Above - Lawful Evil
Samir Duran from the Above - Neutral Evil
Stukov from the Above - True Neutral
Dugalle from the Above - Lawful Neutral
Arcturus Mengsk - Chaotic Neutral with Evil and Lawful Tendencies
Punisher from Marvel Universe - Chaotic Neutral
O'brien from Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell - Lawful Evil
John Stewart from Daily Show - True Neutral
Jason Statham's character in Transporter Movie Series - Lawful Good
V from V for Vendetta - Chaotic Neutral
King Leonidas from the film 300 - Lawful Neutral
Peter Griffin from the TV series Family Guy - Chaotic Evil with Neutral Tendencies
Stewie Griffin from the Above - Chaotic Evil
Brian Griffin from the Above - True Neutral
Lois Griffin from the Above - Lawful Neutral with Chaotic Tendencies
Meg Griffin from the Above - Chaotic Good
Glenn Quagmire from the Above - True Neutral
Joe Syzlack from the Above - Neutral Good
Cleaveland from the Above - Lawful Neutral
Homer Simpson from the TV series The Simpsons - Chaotic Neutral
Marge Simpson from the Above - Lawful Good with Neutral Tendencies
Ned Flanders from the Above - Lawful Good
Bart Simpson from the Above - Chaotic Neutral
Lisa Simpson from the Above - Lawful Neutral
Venom from Marvel Universe - Chaotic Evil with Neutral Tendencies
Eddie Brock from Marvel Universe - Chaotic Neutral
Eddie Brock (pre-ruined life) from Marvel Universe - Lawful Neutral
Peter Parker (pre-revelation spider man) from Marvel Universe - Chaotic Neutral

[Moriato]

I prefer to think of alignment less of something that determines how your character acts, and more being determined by how your character acts.

Say like your soul is a sponge, and soaks up good and evil, and law and chaos. Do an evil act? You soak up a little evil. Do a good act? You soak up a little good. Same with Law and chaos. It doesn't in any way determine how you must act, but it does "stain" you.

This idea can be particularly fun when someone who thinks they're a good person is suddenly being affected by smite evil, and vice versa, of course.

[hamishspence]

Yup- and the D&D sourcebooks tend toward this- with some characters (the witch hunter in Tome of Magic, for example) refusing to believe they are no longer Good.

[Yora]

Of course, you can compare which alignment fits with what character.

But I think it's only interesting as providing a range of examples what a given alignment might look like. I think it's rather pointless to take the other direction and take a specific character and determining his alignment.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Why don't I stick to something I know well?

X-Men (from, well, X-Men. The regular 616 comics, to be exact).

-Cyclops (pre-chairmanship): Lawful Good with Neutral tendencies, has become Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies since becoming Chairman of the Academy. (Originally he was extremely devoted to the well-being of his teammembers and mutants in general, whether he liked them or not, with only some tendencies to get fixated on his own personal baggage. Since assuming authority, he's become much more ruthless in defending the few Mutants who survived M-Day, even drafting an X-Men "Black Ops Team" and using Wolverine as an assassin.)

-Wolverine: Chaotic Neutral when he was first introduced, has since become Chaotic Good. (Do I need to explain this one...?)

-Nightcrawler: Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies. (He's mostly focused on enjoying life and being a source of advice, strength and guidance for his teammates whenever he can. He once led the Excalibur Team, and is a devout Roman Catholic).

-Storm: Chaotic Good with Neutral tendencies. (Storm basically grew up worshipped as a goddess, so her biggest downfall is her own ego and her tendency to do whatever she thinks is right, damn the consequences.)

-Colossus: Neutral with Good tendencies (born a humble, good communist he was brought up with an attitude of being helpful, and is--or was--one of the least violent X-Men by nature. Since returning from alien captivity, he hasn't said much but shown lots of affection for Shadowcat.)

-Shadowcat: Neutral Good with Chaotic tendencies (she takes a lot of guidance from Wolverine, but is more focused on helping others, particularly the young mutants at the academy, and sacrificed herself to save the world from an alien super-weapon).

[hamishspence]

Complete Scoundrel did this a few fictional characters listed for each alignment- showing how the same one can maniest tself in slightly differnt ways.

Carl Denham from King Kong, and Riddick from Pitch Black, are both listed as CE, but their CE-ness is rather different.

EDIT:
And, continuing the X-Men theme:

Magneto is listed as LE.
Mystique is listed as NE.

[Night Monkey]

Rorschach from Watchmen - Chaotic Neutral
The Comedian from the Above - Chaotic Evil with Neutral Tendencies
Ozzymandius from the Above - Lawful Evil with Good Tendencies
Dr Manhatten from the Above - Lawful Neutral
Silk Spectre II from the Above - Chaotic Good
Niteowl II from the Above - Neutral Good
Niteowl I from the Above - Neutral Good
Silk Spectre I from the Above - Chaotic Neutral

Rorshach is too hung up on sexual morality to be described as chaotic. I'd describe him as True Neutral, not because he's on the fence (far from it) but because his behaviour stretches across the whole alignment spectrum.
Ozymandias is certainly not evil, I don't think. He did what he did out of a desire to save lives and prevent war. I think his character is meant to lay out the concept of following perfect good, with all of its implications, which are more sinister than one might expect.
Manhattan has certain lawful tendencies, but I reckon he'd be True Neutral in the end because of his detatchment from human concerns. He has no particular interest in convention most of the time, which is a component of lawfulness.

And, despite his flaws, isn't it a tad harsh to describe Peter Griffin as evil?

One fictional character who I think demonstrates a D&D alignment very well is Malcolm Reynolds as Chaotic Neutral. Flips erratically between ruthless criminality and selfless heroism, but always in opposition to authority and in the interest of remaining free.

I was thinking of trying to do the BSG characters, but most of them change throughout the series in complex ways. The more straightforward ones are
Family Adama- Lawful Good
One- Lawful Evil
Helo- Neutral Good
Starbuck- Chaotic Good
Gaeta- Lawful Neutral
Admiral Kane- Lawful Evil, as in, could take over from Asmodeus and rule the frakking Nine Hells.

[hamishspence]

Starbuck and Mal Reynolds are both listed as CG in Complete Scoundrel-
Though personally I would have put Mal, if not CN, then at least right on the CG/CN border.

[Civil War Man]

3.5 Alignments Using Pirates of the Caribbean

Lawful Good - James Norrington
Neutral Good - Weatherby Swann
Chaotic Good - Will Turner
Lawful Neutral - Hector Barbossa
True Neutral - Tia Dalma
Chaotic Neutral - Jack Sparrow and Gibbs
Lawful Evil - Davy Jones and Cutler Beckett
Neutral Evil - Elizabeth Swann, Pintel and Righetti
Chaotic Evil - Jack the Monkey

I imagine there are a few that people would dispute, so here's my rationale for some of my choices

Norrington - While he did become a pirate for a short time, his entire time as a pirate was spent trying to redeem himself and return to the Navy. Plus even then he did some pretty typical Lawful Good things like risking his own life to cover the escape of the others. None of the actions he committed that could be considered underhanded were targetted at legitimate authority figures.

The Swanns - Weatherby Swann seems much more willing to compromise the Lawful aspect than Norrington. He definitely starts out Lawful Good, but drifts to Neutral Good over time. In my opinion, he hit Neutral Good around the time he abdicated his power to a usurper in order to buy clemency for Elizabeth. And speaking of Elizabeth, many of her actions seemed to be motivated by selfish pursuits. Most of them involve her lying about her identity to ensure her safety, but her attitude is probably epitomized by chaining Jack to the Black Pearl and leaving him to die (even admitting that she was not sorry that she did it).

Tia Dalma - Creatures with no concept of morality are assumed to be True Neutral. Plus it's hard to pin down where she stands on the Law-Chaos spectrum when she jumps back and forth between the two (one minute "as untamable as the sea" the next castigating Davy Jones for abandoning his duty)

[hamishspence]

Jack fits (CS puts him in CN) but Elizabeth, probably some form of Neutral in the first movie, at least.

Barbossa as LN? Seems a bit odd.

[Heliomance]

Rorshach defies alignment. He's so utterly fixated on a complete black and white morality, he doesn't tick by the same standard as the rest of the world. He's also somewhat insane. He's impossible to classify.

[Civil War Man]

Barbossa as LN? Seems a bit odd.

Pirate Lord with strict adherence to the Code. While he may have coined the "more guidelines than actual rules" quip, he never actually violates the letter of his agreements.

And yes, Elizabeth probably started out as Neutral, but I think she drifted Evil over time. Several characters experienced some form of alignment drift over the course of the movies. Davy Jones probably started out Lawful Neutral, Will Turner probably started out more Neutral Good before moving to Chaotic Good, and likely moved back into Neutral Good range at the end of the third movie.

[hamishspence]

But what he does, is generally pretty Evil- the pirate attacks on numerous places, the willingness to sacrifice Elizabeth, the mutiny, the throwing Bill Turner overboard, etc.

[Maerok]

Bob Saget... CE

[Civil War Man]

And he was probably Lawful Evil during Curse of the Black Pearl (convenient, seeing as how he was undead at the time).

When he returns, his motivations and actions are focused on uniting the pirates against a common enemy and undoing what he considered to be an atrocity committed by a previous Pirate Court. When there's no more curse, his behavior much more closely follows Lawful Neutral. If his alignment in the third film could be considered Lawful Evil, then Jack Sparrow is pretty unequivocably Chaotic Evil.

I'm assuming when you talk about throwing Bill Turner overboard, you are referring to Bootstrap. I consider the mutiny against Sparrow to be more of an Evil act. Throwing Bootstrap overboard may have been just as much a Lawful act as it was an Evil one, since it was punishment for intentionally attempting to prevent the removal of the curse, which went against the driving purpose of the crew and could therefore also be considered an act of mutiny.

[imp_fireball]

Of course, you can compare which alignment fits with what character.

But I think it's only interesting as providing a range of examples what a given alignment might look like. I think it's rather pointless to take the other direction and take a specific character and determining his alignment.

That's where you're contradicting yourself. Giving particular characters an alignment is in itself providing an example for what an alignment might look like.

Other than that, the first three posters below the OP have been stating their opinions on how to establish alignment and I'm fine with that.

Although I would encourage you to participate in this exercise should we risk the all-too-often thread derail. Note that I am not a mod.

Ozymandias is certainly not evil, I don't think. He did what he did out of a desire to save lives and prevent war. I think his character is meant to lay out the concept of following perfect good, with all of its implications, which are more sinister than one might expect.

Well he used power to his advantage and with all of his intelligence, he could have thought of another way, couldn't he? Anyway, I gave him good tendencies for a reason.

Rorschach is CN because while he has a strict code of conduct, it is very individualistic. He disobeys the law just to keep his ground and is willing to do whatever it takes to see that crime goes punished. At the same time, he shows grounds for inability to collapse into evil and to be of a certain degree of stable mindedness in that sense (like a soldier without hope), so I would still peg him chaotic neutral.

Rorschach's a great example of a CN character that isn't completely off the racket, as people seem to expect of a CN character. CN people often are individualistic, since their causes are less morally clear (Rorschach is very morally unclear until you dissect his mindset on a thesis level) and often also pegged as anti-heros if they exist to move the plot at all in a good vs. evil story.

[Blue Ghost]

Garfield is CE. Extremely selfish, and at least a bit sadistic, and definitely chaotic. Anyone disagree?
The other characters from Garfield aren't characterized well enough to determine their alignment.

[Faleldir]

Rorshach defies alignment. He's so utterly fixated on a complete black and white morality, he doesn't tick by the same standard as the rest of the world. He's also somewhat insane. He's impossible to classify.

So... whatever alignment Miko was after she fell?

[imp_fireball]

Yah, for a GM that allows quick alignment shifts in major story events, Miko probably would've hit CN as well.

Not that CN people always exist to screw themselves rather than others... heh.

But otherwise, as GM, I would've probably just said that Miko was still LG but since she broke her specific code, she merely lost her paladin levels; it was mere befuddling ignorance from the choices that she made - I'm also surprised that she didn't have something like 3 or 4 WIS if she wasn't insane (which she was, so yah).
--------

And, despite his flaws, isn't it a tad harsh to describe Peter Griffin as evil?

Not at all. Peter Griffin hasn't accomplished very much in his life and he wouldn't be capable of true evil.

It doesn't matter if he cares about those close to him (pretty much all sane human beings do), but he's still evil merely due to his selfishness, and what he does to other people, not among frequently annoying them for no reason. A good example is how he persuaded his friends (along with himself) to break Joe Syzlack's legs just so he'd hang out with them again.

Just remember that he's not evil enough to be condemned to hell - Stewie is!

Also, it's no less harsh than condemning Elizabeth Swann to that spectrum.

[afroakuma]

Rorschach doesn't fit society's Lawful Neutral, but he certainly fits his own Lawful Neutral. He has unshakable standards of conduct for himself and others. He lives by an absolute code and is loath to break it, and harshly judges all those he feels are lax in any respect.

In other words, Rorschach is Lawful Neutral.

As to Peter Griffin being Chaotic Evil, I'm actually heavily inclined to agree. However, his evilness is most often venal, petty, selfish and uncaring.

Perhaps it might be more constructive to mention characters and how they relate on the spectrum of their alignment.

[DragonBaneDM]

See, I wouldn't see Stewie as Chaotic.

His dream is to control the world, not simply blow it up. Also, his plans tend to be VERY elaborate and thought out... For a baby...

I put him as a dominator and as Lawful Evil as Asmodeus put together with Hitler. Heh.

Oh, and I'd like to speak my utter and complete agreement with the post about Rorsharch above my own.

[Mando Knight]

As to Peter Griffin being Chaotic Evil, I'm actually heavily inclined to agree. However, his evilness is most often venal, petty, selfish and uncaring.

In short, the personification of Chaotic Stupid.

[Agrippa]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you Afrokuma. To me at least Law and Chaos aren't about how devoted to your beliefes or how disciplined you are. It's about conformity versues individualism. Lawfuls are collectivists and conformists while Chaotics are individualists and in some cases anarchists. Rorschach is an individualist not a collectivist or conformist.

[afroakuma]

TVTropes also has him in the Family pantheon as a Neutral Evil deity of bumbling dads.

He's definitely Chaotic Stupid, but with a certain underlying selfish malevolence that is fully aware he's living in a Dead Baby Comedy world and quite willing to take advantage of it for pure self-interest.

Examples:

• Father-daughter relations
• Sensitivity to the differently abled

And if this isn't evil, then I don't know what is.

I'm sure I could think of a dozen others easily, but finding them on Youtube is less simple.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you Afrokuma. To me at least Law and Chaos aren't about how devoted to your beliefes or how disciplined you are. It's about conformity versues individualism. Lawfuls are collectivists and conformists while Chaotics are individualists and in some cases anarchists. Rorschach is an individualist not a collectivist or conformist.

Alright, and that's the way you like to run it. However, the Player's Handbook stipulates:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition or a personal code directs her.

Individualism is permitted right there.

She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard

Which Rorschach does. In an absolute fashion, without regard for moral scruple. That which should be punished is punished, without shade, qualifier, ambiguity or gray area. There is no compromise, no hesitation, no alternative. There is never another way. There is never variation. There is only Rorschach.

Lawful neutral.

[Riffington]

Malcolm Reynolds as Chaotic Neutral.
...
Starbuck- Chaotic Good

Switch these. Malcolm Reynolds certainly defies authority, but he always does what's right. He can't steal if he knows someone needs the goods more than he. He always looks after his crew - not just physically but emotionally as well.
Starbuck hurts people, and usually enjoys it or rationalizes it away. She fits into CN, but she could plausibly be CE. Certainly not Good.

[Xey42]

Along the lines of discussion of the Rorschach alignment issues, i think he falls into the same line of ambiguity that Commander Vimes from the diskworld novels would. Vimes is definitively good, Rorschach neutral, but they both walk an interesting line of chaotic lawfulness.

So, i guess in the format requested, my opinions/additions

Commander Vimes from Diskworld, Lawful good with Chaotic Tendencies
Death from above, Lawful Neutral with Chaotic Tendencies (don't mistreat cats in diskworld)
Cohen the Barbarian from above, Chaotic neutral
Captain Carrot from above, Lawful good with neutral good tendencies
Rincewind from above, True neutral (cowardly neutral?) with accidental good tendencies
Sergeant Colon and Corporal Nobbs from above, Lawful good with chaotic tendencies (stupid chaotic good)
Detritus from above, Chaotic Good
Lord Vetinari from above, Lawful Neutral
Moist Von Lipwig from above, Chaotic neutral
Granny Weatherwax from above, Neutral Good
Mr. Teatime from above, Lawful Evil with chaotic tendencies
The auditors from above, Lawful Evil with chaotic tendencies
Lu-Tze from above, Chaotic Good
The elves from above, Chaotic Evil
The luggage from above, True Neutral

[Sinfire Titan]

Starbuck and Mal Reynolds are both listed as CG in Complete Scoundrel-
Though personally I would have put Mal, if not CN, then at least right on the CG/CN border.

Starbucks CG?
See what I did there?

[Aik]

Rorshach is very plainly lawful - he has an utterly rigid code and will absolutely and under no circumstances violate it or allow anyone else to. His code of law basically defines him - if that's not lawful, what is?

One interesting character alignmentwise is Illyana Rasputin from New Mutants (and occasionally X-Men).

On one hand, she's pretty unambiguously evil - soul twisted by demonic sorcerer and all that - and towards the end of her superheroing career (well, temporary end, now) that expresses itself quite a bit in terms of trying to kill people, throwing them to demons, etc. On the other, she tries hard to be a hero and usually succeeds in doing the 'good' thing, even though it's against her nature to do so.

So, where does this put her? Chaotic Neutral because her good and evil tendencies cancel? Or would it be something weird like Chaotic Evil with Good tendencies?

[Mando Knight]

There is no compromise, no hesitation, no alternative. There is never another way. There is never variation. There is only Rorschach.

Lawful neutral.

Well, there's only Rorschach and Not-Rorschach, which is hunted to its demise by Rorschach for not being Rorschach.

[Heliomance]

The Law-Chaos axis of the standard aligment system is broken. It's entirely possible to be Lawful Chaotic. Sam Vimes manages it, for example.